Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 770
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >
Judgment 180
27th Session, 1971
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The prescribed time limit must be held to have been observed if a complaint [...] has been filed with [the Tribunal] late, but was sent within the period of 90 days to the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations. This interpretation is justified because of the links between the international organisations, and in particular by the fact that some staff members" fall within the jurisdiction of the latter Tribunal in matters concerning their pension rights.
Keywords:
complaint; exception; iloat; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; remand; time bar; unat;
Judgment 171
25th Session, 1970
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complaint, filed by a former official of IAEA and FAO, is directed against the ILO, an organisation in which he has never served. "Such a complaint is not one which the Administrative Tribunal is competent to hear under the provisions of article ii of its sSatute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Considerations
Extract:
"[A]ccording to Article VI of the Statute, "the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote; judgments shall be final and without appeal." Accordingly, if [the complainant] is requesting the Tribunal to quash its earlier judgments nos. 142 and 151 [...] his claims are irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 142, 151
Keywords:
application for quashing; finality of judgment; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; last instance; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 165
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in March 1952, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 164
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in May 1951, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 163
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"According to Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint submitted to the Tribunal shall not be receivable unless a final decision is impugned, the person concerned having exhausted such other means of resisting as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations
Extract:
The complaint is not directed against any decision taken by the Director-General. The complainant impugns a decision of 11 March; in fact no administrative authority of the organization took any decision on that date concerning the complainant; 11 March is the date on which he appealed to the internal appeals body. The complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 158
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although the complainant's services terminated [...] as a result of his resignation, he was still entitled to challenge his grading during an earlier period."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; post classification; receivability of the complaint; resignation; separation from service;
Judgment 156
24th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that the complainant has not impugned a final decision after exhausting the internal appeal procedure and that he cannot validly plead that he was unaware of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and Rules concerning internal appeal procedures to justify his direct complaint to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 147
23rd Session, 1970
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant impugns decisions of the Secretary-General without previously having exhausted the internal means of appeal provided for in the Staff Rules. "It follows that the submissions in his complaint in respect of the aforesaid decisions are not receivable."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Although a provision of the Staff Rules allows the Appeals Board "in exceptional cases [to] waive the time-limit, the fact [...] that [the complainant], as a result of a mistake committed in good faith, addressed himself directly to the Administrative Tribunal, was not regarded by the [...] Appeals Board as an exceptional circumstance covered by the above-mentioned provision."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; exception; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 146
23rd Session, 1970
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant did not submit an appeal to the internal appeals body before filing his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal. "He had therefore failed to exhaust the internal procedure available to him before appealing to the Tribunal." The complainant did not obtain the Director-General's leave to appeal directly to the Tribunal as required by the applicable provision. His claims are dismissed.
Keywords:
acceptance; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 140
22nd Session, 1969
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"After the close of the written proceedings the complainant communicated to the Tribunal a statement [...] signed [by a third party]. In principle the Tribunal takes account of all documents produced before the opening of the session at which the relevant case is to be judged. In the case at issue, the Tribunal has no reason not to take the statement into consideration. At the most it might ask the complainant to certify its authenticity, but this is unnecessary since the document in question cannot affect the outcome of the proceedings."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 130
21st Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Failing any action to resist the decision within the prescribed time-limits, the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment became final and can no longer be challenged; consequently, all the complainant's links with the organization were severed from the date on which his contract expired.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; time limit;
Judgment 126
20th Session, 1968
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The organization contends that the present complaint has become irrelevant because of the termination of the complainant's employment after the filing of the complaint. "But the legality of the decision to terminate, which is also attacked in a complaint before the Administrative Tribunal, depends on the disposal of the present complaint. Moreover, if the present complaint were held to be well founded, the complainant could claim damages even if her complaint concerning termination were to be dismissed."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; judicial review; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; termination of employment;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 122
20th Session, 1968
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision not to renew his contract was notified to the complainant on 6 March and again on 15 June following his request for a review. On 25 June the complainant addressed a request to the organisation based on new arguments and directed to securing reconsideration of his case. Following this request the Director-General communicated to the complainant on 14 August a decision definitely confirming the previous decision, but in part on new grounds. The time limit for the filing of the complaint began to run only from the date of the notification of the decision of 14 August.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; confirmatory decision; contract; date; date of notification; decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 117
19th Session, 1968
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
If the signatory to the contract of employment had authority from the organization, the complainant could be held to be employed by the organization. "Authority is a clear and precise legal conception and if it cannot be found to exist it is not permissible to take refuge in imprecise expressions, such as that the credit union [which employs the complainant] was a body "within the framework of [the organization]". Accordingly, the complainant not being employed by [the organization], and so not one of its staff members, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; delegated authority; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;
Judgment 114
18th Session, 1967
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant failed to appeal against the impugned decision to the internal appeals body, contrary to statutory procedure. He has not therefore "exhausted the means at his disposition, under the applicable staff regulations. Accordingly his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 112
18th Session, 1967
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"A plea to quash can be directed only against a decision, that is, against an act deciding a question in a specific case." A performance report embodies no decision capable of being rescinded. A complaint seeking such relief is not receivable.
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; condition; decision; performance report; probation report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 111
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is a rule generally recognised by the courts that a complainant is not entitled to refer to the courts in a single complaint two or more different decisions having no connection with each other. In such a case, the court can examine the complaint only in respect of the first decision specified therein."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 108
17th Session, 1967
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Once the complainant did not ask for a hearing within the [...] time limit provided for [under the material provision], the appeal which he later instituted [...] was not receivable [...]. Consequently [...] insofar as it sought to resist the Director-General's decision to accept the opinion of the Appeals Board recognising that it was irreceivable the complaint is unfounded and must be dismissed."
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 91
16th Session, 1966
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As regards the arguments based on equity which the complainant puts forward in favour of a review of his grievances, the Tribunal cannot take these arguments into account since the time limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal is mandatory; it is binding on the complainant and cannot be extended by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >
|
